The .50 Cal VS Aircraft. My take . . .

[44 AMP]

SAM knocking out a jumbo jet

One of Clancy's books mentions this, how there are teams of handheld sams protecting the white house (in the book), but they are only capable of knowcking out a light plane. One guy asks why they won't stop and airliner, and the answer he gets is that it is only a tiny missle, and while it might take out a big plane by causing it to lose control at 30,000ft, at low altitude, it wasn't enough to stop the plane. And the guy asks again, why not?

Put it this way, if an 18 wheeler is barreling down on you and is only a few dozen yards away, do you think shooting out one of the tires is going to stop it?

Put that way, the guy understands.

You might be able to take out an airliner on take off or landing with a rifle, if you could hit the pilot, and he crashes the pane before the copilot can grab the controls. You could win the lottery too, and for that, I think your odds are better.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Aqeous, while I agree that there is little real threat from a .50, you obviously haven't spent much time with a .50, have you?

The second argument is range: but the standard .308 cartridge can make it out to 1000 yards. As can every rifle caliber above it all the way up to the 50 cal. What distances are you worried about? Meaning at what range is a bullet dangerous to aircraft? 500 yards? 700 yards? Most any bolt action rifle (in any caliber) is capable of punching holes at that range. Not to mention hitting something the size of 747 is the literal equivalent of hitting the broad side of a barn.

The Barrett M82A1 (the older Barrett in use) is considered by the Marines to have an EFFECTIVE materials range of 2000 yards, although reports vary between 1600 and 2400 depending on other sources for what is or is not effective. For something soft like aluminum, probably much greater. The max range is 7000 yards. Yeah, range is significant with a .50 BMG round

Third: what kind of damage might we expect from a 50 cal hit onto an aircraft being that it has never before happened? When metal hits metal you get a hole, and in the case of the 50 you get a hole that is exactly 1/2" in diameter. If neither fuel or engine is hit what kind of damage might we expect? And if Fuel or engine is hit will a .511" hole be more devastating then a .338" hole that could theoretically be created by a standard Elk rifle?

Through a single panel of thin aluminum, you might get a hole the same diameter as the bullet, or it may blast a larger hold. Hitting the next layer or layers of aluminum, you will get larger holes, tearing of the metal, "flowering" etc. If the bullet tumbles, even more damage, such as going through the outside skin, then the layers of the fuel tanks and exiting.

1.) Bullet Vs Gas tank does not = explosion unless you use illegal incederiary rounds. It doesn't matter what caliber you use. (propane tanks not included But there is no Propane on a 747)

I don't know where you are, A, but we can buy incendiary, incendiary tracer, armor piercing incendiary, and armor piercing incendiary tracer in much of the country fairly easily. Hell, you can order it online. It isn't illegal, at least not in most of the country. So sure, you could burn down a plane, if you can hit the tanks with the appropriate round.

2.) A hole in an Aircraft does not equal "explosive decompression" like you see on the movies. It just equals a hole . . .

Generally the argument as I understand it is this: Taxing (and/or) taking off aircraft VS the 50 cal.

We were talking about planes on the ground. There is no compression. Of course at altitude, there is no explosive decompression.

 

[Curtis(USAF)]

A word on Jetfuel, It has an extremely rediculously high flashpoint. Granted, once you can get it burning, you have a heck of a fire, but its a real challenge to get it burning. Its not like gasoline, its more like diesel or kerosene. Its extremely stable, but once its ignited, you have a much larger, stable BTU output. Your incendiaries may not do the trick. Your tracers have an extremely low change of doing the trick. Your explosive rounds probably won't do the trick.

In order to get an explosion, you need fuel vapors, which mean an aircraft that is low on fuel. So the whole takeoff setup is out the window. Planes coming in may not be low, since many continue on to other destinations without refueling. You really have no way of looking at a plane and guessing its fuel loadout. There is also the fact that the fumes will be at the tops of the tanks, (Located in the wings) You're shooting at the bottom of the plane. Your rounds are going to hit the fuel, and the fuel will lack the required oxygen to ignite.

Further more, ever since Flight 800, large size commercial planes have been fitted with nitrogen blanket and fuel vapor purge systems for their fuel tanks. So now the vapors are kept to an absolute minimum. You are not going to get the plane to explode. And that is assuming you can hit a target moving at multiple vector angle, at a speed of over 200 miles per hour, while sighting in via an extremely high power scope (The whole point is to use the 50 cals enormous range to engage the target from outside the airports perimeter fencing). I don't know anyone who can reliably make that shot. As far as light planes go, their glide characteristics are superior to larger planes, and they still burn highly stable avgas. So you won't get an explosion, and even if you take out the engine, the pilot can still dead stick his plane in. Finally, their just about immune to heat seakers because they don't generate a signicant enough heat signature.

Taking on an airliner with a 50BMG is a fools errand. Worrying about terrorists shooting at planes with 50BMGs' is a waste of effort that could be diverted towards more credible threats, and "Being so concerned for safety" that you are willing to ban all weapons with a bullet above 50cal, even 50AE and 500 S&W pistol cartridges, 50 cal muzzle loaders, and even potentially civil war reenactment muskets and rifles (The Springfield 1861 rifled musket fired a .58 caliber minie ball) is flat out stupid and paranoid.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Taking on an airliner with a 50BMG is a fools errand.

Yeah, like strapping on a chest bomb and walking into a peasant market and detonating isn't? Terrorists don't have the same mindset we have. They don't have the same risk-reward values either.

 

[Creature]

Airliners aren't simply "aluminum tubes". A well-placed 50cal round shot from a distance at an airliner on the ground could fatally damage a structural frame or any number of internal systems. It wouldn't even need to be a 50cal round. If the shooter took the time to learn critical systems and their locations (which is an entirely feasible task), it would be relatively easy to cause a potentially catastrophic equipment casualty with a few well placed shots. Still, a 50 wouldnt be the choice means of accomplishing that task.

 

[GoSlash27]

Yeah, like strapping on a chest bomb and walking into a peasant market and detonating isn't? Terrorists don't have the same mindset we have. They don't have the same risk-reward values either.

Their reward is in accomplishing the mission. Surely you don't argue that point?
The .50BMG sniper rifle is a poor choice to accomplish the mission of downing an airliner.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Their reward is in accomplishing the mission. Surely you don't argue that point?
The .50BMG sniper rifle is a poor choice to accomplish the mission of downing an airliner.

I would not argue that point at all, but who said the goal of terrorist was to actually bring down a plane? Okay, maybe the anti-gun groups. However, the plane need not be brought down to accomplish the mission. The mission is to incite terror. You can do that by bombing a non-strategic market and killing some no-name innocent people or by popping a few holes in a plane at O'Hare, LAX, DFW, Reagan, etc. It is naive to think that the mission is to make a plane crash or to kill a couple dozen people in a market. Those are only the means by which the mission is accomplished.

Say you camp outside the airport and lay in 5 hits on a 676 taxiing on the tarmac. The plane doesn't explode, but it doesn't have to. It isn't going to fly. In fact, none of the planes are going to fly. Every single plane at the airport will be ground and the airport shut down until which time all planes have been inspected and the threat is determined to be over. This is out of fear that there is still risk.

What will that do? It will have a domino effect. Say DFW shuts down. That throws off all flights in and out of the airport including all flights depending on connections down the line. That will mess up the entire system, just like when a storm unexpectantly shuts down an airport, only storms don't usually result in mandatory inspection of all planes for battle damage.

So without actually bringing down a single plane, $50 of ammo and minimal damage to one plane can ground dozens, cancel hundreds of flights, shut down an airport for hours, etc.

In fact, there may be a lot more terroristic benefit to not having the plane fall out of the sky. If a plane is shot down and nobody knows it was being shot at, there is no immediate terror effect. It would have to come out in the investigation. Or by the time it is understood what is going on, the threat is perceived to be gone from the area. Instead, shooting a taxiing plane and in a manner where it doesn't take off may do more psychological and monetary damage than shooting one down.

 

[Curtis(USAF)]

1. If your argument is correct that you don't need to bring down an airliner in flight, you just need to put holes in it on the ground in order to scare people about what might have happened, then you still don't need a fifty cal. Any rifle cartridge can do the trick. Heck, you could probably reach the target with an M-4 carbine if you picked the right location. You could get a job at the airport and stab the sides of the plane with an icepick.

2. I don't think your argument of psychological/monetary damage being considered a mission success is valid. Suicide bombers who don't kill anyone are failures. The news report will go in as "So and so terrorist group shot at a plane. Thankfully no one was injured." No one is afraid of an attack that results in no one getting hurt, and nothing getting destroyed. Its like a suicide bomber who blows himself up in the middle of no where. Its a washout. The good guys show up, do a show of force, and then proclaim the area "Safe" and the planes get back to flying. The air traffic system shows its' flexibility, the security system shows off its response speed and professionalism, and the terrorists wind up in Gitmo where they belong.

3.What makes you think those five hits are going to be immediately identified? I say the plane takes off, a warning light flicks on, the pilot lands the thing, and it takes four days for NTSB to verify that someone did indeed shoot at and hit a plane. In the meantime, the airport isn't shutdown, and business goes on as usual. For all they know its just a mysterious inflight emergency. Those holes in the plane? "Could have been woodpeckers for all we know. Maybe some kind of violent component failure. A hydraulic pump exploding or a high voltage wire bundle burning out. It looks like bullet holes, we'll have to an full investigation." Three days later, its confirmed that it was indeed gunshots, it runs on the news with the tag line "....Thankfully no one was injured." and the police ask for additional funds to patrol the surrounding area more thoroughly.

Either way, the problem is not "Terrorists getting ahold of 50BMG sniper rifles" Terrorists with guns in America are bad period, its not like Its okay for terrorists to have muzzle loaders and percussion cap revolvers, just as long as they don't have AKs and Barret Rifles. The focus shouldn't be on the rifles, the focus should be on people. People who shouldn't have any weapon period, and how to keep them from getting any weapon period. A weapon, be it a pistol, rifle, tazer, etc, is only as dangerous as the jerk carrying it. Get rid of that jerk, and the weapon alone won't harm anyone. Find that jerk, put him in stop him at the border, put him in prison, get him the psych help he needs if he's one of those nutjobs building bombs in his basement while wearing a tinfoil hat, and catch him before he can hurt anyone. We keep banning things left and right because "Their dangerous in the wrong hands" we'll wind up locking the whole nation in windowless rooms with loflow toilet in the corner so they don't drown themselves.

quit worrying about what gun can do what, and start worrying about people. Otherwise we'll turn into England, the nation that banned guns, swords, knives, self defense, and is still looking for what else it can ban, while wondering why people keep getting killed in the street.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

3.What makes you think those five hits are going to be immediately identified? I say the plane takes off, a warning light flicks on, the pilot lands the thing, and it takes four days for NTSB to verify that someone did indeed shoot at and hit a plane. In the meantime, the airport isn't shutdown, and business goes on as usual.

Since we are talking about shooting a taxiing plane and since the biggest target presented would be the broadside view of the fuselage (at most airports), then those holes will likely be in the fuselage. You are right, if they go somewhere that nobody isn't, no one will notice. Good point. I was thinking in terms of passing through the passenger compartment and there folks will notice. Of course, that is only the top half or 2/3 of the fuselage for much or all of its length.

I sincerely doubt terrorists would just shoot one plane, however. If there was to be a terror attack on an airport, they would likely pepper several aircraft. They will act until they get noticed. That is the point, is it not?

I have no worries about the rifles. I own a Barrett and am quite familiar with its capabilities. Yes, terrorists are bad, period. It is also bad to naively discount potential threats because we consider them to be impractical or a "fool's errand" sort of logic. Nobody really thought a short bladed cutting implement would a realistic weapon with which to use to hijack an aircraft, but go it happened with several planes in one day. Not much thought was given to suicide bombers in the US, but it happened. In fact, it was the short bladed implements used by several actors that resulted in letting them become suicide bombers.

No, the .50 BMG rifle isn't much of a threat to aircraft, but it should not be written off as well. It isn't the blowing up or the crashing of the plane that is at issue. The attacks of 9/11 had the greatest impacts in the realms of politics, psychology, and economics in the US, not actual physical damage or loss of life, even though both were substantial.

 

[GoSlash27]

DNS,
I'm sorry, but I disagree. There's nothing that a terrorist is going to shoot that's going to mandate the use of a .50 BMG boltie. They'd rather not use one because .50BMGs tend to attract attention.

You remember the Beltway sniper? Now *that* was an effective terrorist attack.